You can never die. Because you never existed in the first place. — Hippyhead

The being that needs to survive, find comfort, and entertainment, lest some deprivation be felt through pain, suffering, need, and want.

So I cannot be destroyed because I'm not the kind of thing that cannot be destroyed? :chin:

So I cannot be destroyed because I'm not the kind of thing that cannot be destroyed? — jamalrob

According to the theory, you can not be destroyed because, as a pattern, you don't exist.

Metaphysics & Epistemology - ok, thanks, educational for the original poster.

This example may help describe what is happening in a lot of philosophical conversations, particularly those about the largest of questions, such as religion.

The story about the wave is perfectly reasonable in our every day common sense human scale lives. The wave was born, it lived, it died. End of story, no reason to complicate it. There is a pencil on my desk or there isn't. Simple, obvious, useful.

The problems perhaps arise when we try to map such a simplistic "alive or dead, exists or not" paradigm which is useful at human scale on to the largest of questions. As I'm found of ranting, space doesn't seem to fit within the constraints of a dualistic "exists or not" concept. Perhaps matter doesn't either because as we dive down in to the details of matter the boundary between exists and doesn't exist seems to blur considerably. So we don't need to enter the realm of religion to explore this possible problem.

If we did want to dive in to religion, one thing I see happening (amongst a million other things) is that religions will attempt to approach such questions, but typically do so in language which is often alien to modern scientific culture. Sometimes the religions are likely just full of crap, but on other occasions the disconnect may be more of a cultural translation issue.

To the degree it's a translation problem, here's how it might come about. Even if the thesis offered here were somehow proven to be exactly absolutely true in every regard :-) this thread would still be largely useless to the vast majority of humanity, few of whom are philosophers, and very many of whom are barely educated. So if you are a religion and your goal is to serve humanity at large, and not just a tiny elite of hyper-intelligent abstraction processors such as ourselves :-) you have to reach for some kind of language other than what is being presented here.

And then you have to establish some kind of authority structure because most human beings, including us, don't really listen to reason so much as we do authority of some kind or another. As example, if Einstein came here to the forum anonymously and began posting as Nerddog28 we'd all begin challenging him immediately. If he instead came here as Einstein, and posted the exact same ideas, very different result.

And for a religion to achieve authority it has to reach across a long time period so as make the implied claim that, LOTS of other people believe this, so you might as well too. And so we wind up with language rooted in a long past cultural circumstance which many moderns will understandably not find relevant to their lives.

According to the theory, you can not be destroyed because, as a pattern, you don't exist. — Hippyhead

But things that exist cannot be destroyed either, as you stated. My point was that you seem to be assuming that to be destroyed, you have to exist, even while saying that such things that exist--matter and energy--cannot be destroyed either.

So maybe nothing can be destroyed? But you did claim that patterns are created, when you said that a wave was "a pattern created by energy applied to water". But surely something that can be created can be destroyed, no?

But things that exist cannot be destroyed either, as you stated — jamalrob

I did? Hmm...

Einstein says that energy can't be either created or destroyed, so ok, yes on that one. But the water could conceivably be boiled away from every planet in the universe, the atomic structure could be dismantled entirely etc. Does this satisfy your question?

But you did claim that patterns are created, when you said that a wave was "a pattern created by energy applied to water". But surely something that can be created can be destroyed, no? — jamalrob

Yes, the pattern is real, and has a beginning and an end, agreed. But it doesn't exist, according to our definitions of that word.

One of the things that has become clearer to me from many conversations here on the forum is that phenomena can be real, without existing. And not just "things", but damn near everything, ie. space.

Thanks for engaging. And for being a good sport about my way too many opinions.

Einstein says that energy can't be either created or destroyed, so ok, yes on that one. But the water could conceivably be boiled away from every planet in the universe, the atomic structure could be dismantled entirely etc. Does this satisfy your question? — Hippyhead

I don't think so. So according to you, it is not just matter and energy that exist, but matter and energy that has taken various forms, e.g., water? What is the difference between a form and a pattern? What makes a water molecule different from a wave, such that one exists and the other doesn't? You've mentioned "our definition" of existence a couple of times now, but this is far from a settled question in philosophy, and you haven't been explicit about it. Why would anyone agree with a scheme in which matter and energy cannot be destroyed, but molecules can, but waves and people can't?

Anyway, let's say that we cannot die and waves cannot be destroyed. Where does that leave us? Why is that better than saying we die while the matter and energy that we were made of remains? How is that any different? What we value, in fact what we're actually talking about when we talk about death, destruction, and even existence, is the patterns. All you've done is redefine the words involved.

EDIT: This all seems to me rather like when people say that solid things are not really solid (which is a misunderstanding of physics or misuse of language).

I don't think so. — jamalrob

Ah, good, would hate to see the thread die so soon. :-)

So according to you, it is not just matter and energy that exist, but matter and energy that has taken various forms, e.g., water? — jamalrob

I'm not a physics major, but it seems only energy exists, with matter being a form of energy. Or so I thought I heard in my advanced studies at Netflix University.

What is the difference between a form and a pattern? What makes a water molecule different from a wave, such that one exists and the other doesn't? — jamalrob

Seem the same thing to me.

You've mentioned "our definition" of existence a couple of times now, but this is far from a settled question in philosophy, and you haven't been explicit about it. — jamalrob

Ah, ok, fair enough, I'm using the general man in the street definition, has weight and mass.

Why would anyone agree with a scheme in which matter and energy cannot be destroyed, but molecules can, but waves and people can't? — jamalrob

I don't expect anyone to agree here. :-) I did say that I thought matter could be destroyed, the atomic structure unraveled etc. Energy no, as far as I know.

I think that what I'm saying, or at least tried to say, is that everything observable is patterns in energy, and that the patterns have no existence (weight and mass) of their own. And I'm certain I'm hardly the first person to say this, but am just expressing things already said many times in my own particular language.

Anyway, let's say that we cannot die and waves cannot be destroyed. Where does that leave us? — jamalrob

United with all of reality. If all is just patterns, and patterns don't exist, there is only energy. Or, a religious person might say, all is God. I'm not religious, so I'm putting it a different way.

What we value, in fact what we're actually talking about when we talk about death, destruction, and even existence, is the patterns. All you've done is redefine them. — jamalrob

Why morn the end of the wave when the water and energy have gone nowhere? Yes, the pattern is gone, but it never existed in the first place.

What we value is thought. "Me" and "my thoughts", all of it thought. What is thought? A pattern of relationships between neurons. The neurons exist, have weight and mass. The pattern of relationships is real, but has no existence of it's own. We can't take a thought out of our heads and put it on the table, leaving the neurons behind.

Good discussion! Good challenges! Good moderator! :-)

Seem the same thing to me. — Hippyhead

So you agree that forms and patterns are the same thing, but you've said that forms of energy or matter can be destroyed, after saying that patterns cannot.

I'm using the general man in the street definition, has weight and mass — Hippyhead

Did you ask this man in the street if light and gravity, governments and currencies, species and rectangles, love and beauty, pieces of music and rivers exist? Anyway, to my knowledge there is no such philosophical position on existence as the one you mention.

My nitpicking is to try and make things clear and coherent, but aside from all of that, maybe you're a modern-day Heraclitus: all is flux, you never step in the same river twice.

What we value is thought. — Hippyhead

If by "we" you mean philosophers, yes sure, but when I said "we" I meant people, and people value more than mere thought.

Some relevant comments...

"One might almost say that our surface being is only the deeper eternal self in us throwing itself out as the adventurer in Time, a gambler and speculator in infinite possibilities, limiting itself to the succession of moments so that it may enjoy all the surprise and delight of the adventure, keeping back its self-knowledge and complete self-being so that it may win again what it seems to have lost, reconquering all itself through the chequered joy and pain of an aeonic passion and seeking and adventure.."

Sri Aurobindo
The Life Divine

"I can tell you nothing but this; I see that by God’s mercy there has come to be in me a form which is not fashioned out of matter, and I have passed out of myself and entered into an immortal body! I am not now the man I was; I have been born again in spirit, and the bodily shape which was mine before has been put away from me. I am no longer an object coloured and tangible, a thing of spatial dimensions; I am now alien to all this, and all that you perceive when you gaze with bodily eyesight. To such eyes as yours, my son, I am not now visible."

Corpus Hermanicum
Poimandres:(Shepherd of Men)


“ Not from self, not from other,
Not from both, nor without cause:
Things do not arise
At any time, at any place.

"This verse [by Nagarjuna] proves that things do not arise because they do not arise from any of the four extremes: They do not arise from themselves, from something other than themselves, from both themselves and something other than themselves, and they do not arise without any cause at all. These are the only four possible ways in which things could arise, and since none of them are valid, things do not truly arise. Therefore, things do not truly exist."

Khenpo Tsütrim Gyamtso
The Sun of Wisdom
Teachings on the Noble Nagarjuna’s
Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way

Did you ask this man in the street if light and gravity, governments and currencies, species and rectangles, love and beauty, pieces of music and rivers exist? Anyway, to my knowledge there is no such philosophical position on existence as the one you mention.

Existence usually means 'to stand out'. Thus a thing exists if it stands out from its background. This would be why Schrodinger notes that as well as what exists there is 'the canvas on which they are painted'. For a Venn diagram a set does not exist unless it stands out from the blank piece of paper.

The waves 'exist' because they stand out. The ocean does not stand out but is what existents stand-out from. Existents are phenomenal, having only a dependent-existence, therefore are not truly real. What is truly real is the background but this does not exist in the sense of 'standing-out'. Thus nothing really exists.

“Dionysius went so far with the negative ways of speaking of God that he even denied God existed: ‘It is the universal cause of existence while itself existing not, for it is beyond all being’ (from his book On the Divine Names). This might seem like nonsense. It would certainly cause a stir if a preacher went up into the pulpit and said, “According to our greatest authorities, God is not like anything of which you can think. In fact, I can tell you that God does not even exist. Let us pray.

But of course the point is to say that God does not exist in the same way that anything we can imagine exists. God is ‘Nothing’, not-a-thing, but that Nothing is not a sheer vacuum. It is that in which all distinctions fade away, but in which they are rooted.”

Keith Ward
God: A Guide for the Perplexed

So you agree that forms and patterns are the same thing, but you've said that forms of energy or matter can be destroyed, after saying that patterns cannot. — jamalrob

I didn't say anything about forms.

Anyway, to my knowledge there is no such philosophical position on existence as the one you mention. — jamalrob

C'mon, give me a little break, you're sinking in to automated rejectionism mode.

My nitpicking is to try and make things clear and coherent — jamalrob

Ok, no objection to this. If I didn't support that agenda I'd be on a blog where only I can post.

If by "we" you mean philosophers, yes sure, but when I said "we" I meant people, and people value more than mere thought. — jamalrob

Arguably not. One theory is that we don't value things so much as our relationship with those things. The relationships are made of thought.

Gotta step out for a few hours. Look forward to continuing!

I didn't say anything about forms — Hippyhead

You did.

C'mon, give me a little break, you're sinking in to automated rejectionism mode. — Hippyhead

No, I really do think your definition of existence is wrong, and obviously so, and I don't think it's a popular view either in philosophy or on the street.

EDIT: I've just remembered that there is a view in philosophy called mereological nihilism, according to which you and I and waves, and anything else that's made of smaller bits, do not exist: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/material-constitution/#Eli

Existence usually means 'to stand out'. Thus a thing exists if it stands out from its background. This would be why Schrodinger notes that as well as what exists there is 'the canvas on which they are painted'. For a Venn diagram a set does not exist unless it stands out from the blank piece of paper.

The waves 'exist' because they stand out. The ocean does not stand out but is what existents stand-out from. Existents are phenomenal, having only a dependent-existence, therefore are not truly real. What is truly real is the background but this does not exist in the sense of 'standing-out'. Thus nothing really exists. — FrancisRay

I like that way of talking about existence, but you don't make much use of it. If waves do exist, i.e., they stand out phenomenally against a background, then you cannot say that they do not exist without redefining "exist". You seem to do that when you say that things that exist "are not truly real" (whatever that means), and take that implicitly to entail that they don't exist after all. Why? It must be because you think that to exist is not in fact to stand out phenomenally against a background--which I guess is why you use the quotation marks around "exist"--but rather is to be "truly real" and to appear to stand out, which is by definition impossible.

So you began by offering an interesting way of thinking about existence, but then immediately dismissed it because it's phenomenal and not "truly real", without explaining what this means or why it should justify a dismissal.

All right...

I think that what I'm saying, or at least tried to say, is that everything observable is patterns in energy, and that the patterns have no existence (weight and mass) of their own. And I'm certain I'm hardly the first person to say this, but am just expressing things already said many times in my own particular language. — Hippyhead

Nobody says that only things with mass exist, I don't think. Well, you do, but it seems eccentric. So as far as I can make sense of things, what you're saying is that everything observable is patterns in energy, which have no mass. Well, okay, if you like.

Why morn the end of the wave when the water and energy have gone nowhere? Yes, the pattern is gone, but it never existed in the first place. — Hippyhead

Because it's the wave that I observed, that I loved, that was part of my world, and that is gone. I don't give a shit about the water and energy. You see the problem? It's patterns that are significant, even if you define them out of existence.

well when you define it like that then “Dying” as used in day to day life becomes “A pattern ceasing to exist” in which case you still die. We (patterns) care about other patterns. No one gives a shit about the water except buddhists. They wish to no longer suffer by choosing not to grow attached to any waves.

I have always viewed life as a concentrated set of chemical and physical reactions that seeks to renew itself.

The sun is a chemical and physical reaction of gravity and burning hydrogen. Eventually, it will run out. But the sun does not seek to replenish itself. It will run out without any attempt to stop it.

A life on the other hand seeks water and food, things it needs to continue its chemical and physical reaction. When it can no longer do this by obtaining food and water, it does this by making a new copy of itself, or reproduction.

Once a life can no longer renew itself, the reaction ceases, and it is dead.

So yes, we can exist as life, and our life can die.

It’s all just so much neural activity, ergo, all meaningless and certainly nothing to get anxious about.

I like that way of talking about existence, but you don't make much use of it. If waves do exist, i.e., they stand out phenomenally against a background, then you cannot say that they do not exist without redefining "exist". You seem to do that when you say that things that exist "are not truly real" (whatever that means), and take that implicitly to entail that they don't exist after all. Why?

So you began by offering an interesting way of thinking about existence, but then immediately dismissed it because it's phenomenal and not "truly real", without explaining what this means or why it should justify a dismissal.

Fair comment. I didn't go further because it's such a difficult topic.

For the mystic the space-time world is found to be much as Hippyhead describes it. Our separation from the ocean would be illusory or superficial. But it would not be rigorous to say psycho-physical phenomena don't exist. Rather, they would exist, but not in the way we usually imagine. Thus Heraclitus states 'We are and are-not'. This is an expression of the Buddhist doctrine of 'Two Truths' or 'Worlds' which divides the world into the Conventional and Ultimate, which are two levels of analysis and speech. Only one phenomenon would be independently or truly real, but as there is nothing from which it could stand out it cannot be said to exist in the ordinary sense. Thus, as Keith Ward explains in that quote, Classical Christianity does not claim 'God exists' since this might be misunderstood as meaning God exists as an individual only in the sense that we do as individuals. But Existence must have a source, and it cannot be Existence. . . . . . . .

Thus it is claimed that nothing really exists or ever really happens - where the word 'really' would signify that these phenomenal things do exist in a sense,.(As is obvious). By reduction, however, whether in experience or in analysis, they would not. .

The 'immortality' and 'transcendence' spoken of in Yoga and self-enquiry depends utterly on the ultimate non-existence of the phenomenal world. If anything really existed it would be irreducible, just as philosophers discover by analysis, and mysticism would not exist. .

The problem with the waves and ocean analogy is that it might suggest the waves and the ocean have the same kind of existence, but this is not the intended message.

Is this better? .
. . . .

.

. .

well when you define it like that then “Dying” as used in day to day life becomes “A pattern ceasing to exist” in which case you still die. We (patterns) care about other patterns. No one gives a shit about the water except buddhists. They wish to no longer suffer by choosing not to grow attached to any waves.

Exactly. You may choose to identify yourself with the part that dies, and this is fine. But if you wish to transcend death then you also have to transcend life. Mysticism is all about realising one is not the pattern but the source of the pattern.

Actually Buddhists are only a small proportion of the people who 'give a shit'. If we did a survey of people on their deathbeds I suspect most people would. . . . . ,

No, I really do think your definition of existence is wrong, and obviously so, and I don't think it's a popular view either in philosophy or on the street.


Hmm. I don;t think most people on the street or even most philosophers have a coherent idea of existence. Meanwhile, in mysticism there is something close to unanimity. .

No, I really do think your definition of existence is wrong, and obviously so, and I don't think it's a popular view either in philosophy or on the street. — jamalrob

Ok then, please continue and share what you feel an appropriate definition would be.

While awaiting your reply, my quick take would be that I don't consider philosophers to be that rational, and am guessing the street doesn't really care one way or another, generally speaking. That sentiment is open to challenge as well of course.

It is the universal cause of existence while itself existing not, for it is beyond all being’ (from his book On the Divine Names). This might seem like nonsense — FrancisRay

It sounds like space to me. I have no hard opinion on this, but find myself intrigued by the notion that what so many have been trying to describe in so much fancy language is space. As just one example, it's the known proven phenomena which would seem to best align with the Catholic doctrine that God is ever present in all times and places. It also embodies some of the contradictions which have befuddled so many, such as being real but not existent. Oops, wandering off topic...

Ok then, please continue and share what you feel an appropriate definition would be — Hippyhead

Let's instead take seriously the position that people and waves and other such composite objects don't exist, that patterns in general don't exist. There might be a few philosophers who agree. I don't agree with it, but I'll go along with it for now.

Does it then follow that people don't die? I think not. Surely what follows is that dying describes the destruction of a pattern, or the conclusion of a patterny process, even if this isn't the end of any thing's existence.

If this is right, then there is little comfort in knowing that nothing has ceased to exist. It just means that existence wasn't the important thing all along.

Of course, the idea that our constituent existents will find their way into other patterns might be appealing, but it doesn't really detract from the seriousness of death.

Nobody says that only things with mass exist, I don't think — jamalrob

Phenomena can be real, without having mass. Space for example. Thus it seems useful to make a distinction between "real" and "exists". Admittedly common usage often lumps the two together.

And by the way, how many millions of God threads have you read that essentially claim God doesn't exist because it has no measurable properties such as weight and mass? Such claims seem to assume that such measurable properties are the definition of existence.

Because it's the wave that I observed, that I loved, that was part of my world, and that is gone. I don't give a shit about the water and energy. You see the problem? — jamalrob

Yes, I do, would agree that such abstractions as we are exploring here will have limited emotional value. That said, I've been considering this for years, and for this nerd it does help create a different mental image than "when I die I lose everything".

There can be very practical implications of such a different mental image, to the degree it's possible to attain. As example, my mother died a very long hard death from Parkinsons because she wasn't a philosopher or religious, so she had nothing but the common "fight to the bitter end" philosophy to guide her. If they should tell me I have Parkinsons, I'm convinced my next step would be to get my affairs in order and then put a bullet in my brain. Part of this is a very ordinary fear of pain, and another part a sense that, um, the ocean is where I come from.

In agreement with your sentiment above I will remind you of the posts I shared above regarding how religions typically understand that this level of abstraction has limited practical use, and so they reach for other more accessible language. But philosophers tend to hate such language, so I am attempting to speak here in the local dialect, if you will.

the ocean is where I come from — Hippyhead

You can't know that. Maybe you come from a very different place and upon death will return there, wherever that is. The ocean is far too big for you to even begin to imagine, in other words. Scary thought?

Let's instead take seriously the position that people and waves and other such composite objects don't exist, that patterns in general don't exist. — jamalrob

Real, but non-existent, according my use of the word. Like space, the overwhelming vast majority of reality.

Does it then follow that people don't die? — jamalrob

If you don't exist, how do you die? If we agree that everything is energy, and energy can not be created or destroyed, then where is there to go?

Again, I do realize this is a highly abstracted way to look it, but then, this is a philosophy forum after all. If your challenge is that it's too abstract to be of much practical use, I would generally agree, on average, most of the time. Religions tend to be much more practical about such things.

Surely what follows is that dying describes the destruction of a pattern — jamalrob

Ok, I can agree, something which doesn't exist is no more. I know, I hear you, contradictory. But perhaps you could revisit the posts above regarding the attempt to map human scale concepts on to the very largest of questions? I have attempted to address this.

If this is right, then there is little comfort in knowing that nothing has ceased to exist — jamalrob

Again agree that such abstractions do not excel at the comfort business. But we are nerds, this is what we do. Mostly. At least here.

If you should feel that comfort is the most rational goal of such an inquiry then perhaps we should discuss different tools?

Yes, I do, would agree that such abstractions as we are exploring here will have limited emotional value. That said, I've been considering this for years, and for this nerd it does help create a different mental image than "when I die I lose everything".

There can be very practical implications of such a different mental image, to the degree it's possible to attain. As example, my mother died a very long hard death from Parkinsons because she wasn't a philosopher or religious, so she had nothing but the common "fight to the bitter end" philosophy to guide her. If they should tell me I have Parkinsons, I'm convinced my next step would be to get my affairs in order and then put a bullet in my brain. Part of this is a very ordinary fear of pain, and another part a sense that, um, the ocean is where I come from.

In agreement with your sentiment above I will remind you of the posts I shared above regarding how religions typically understand that this level of abstraction has limited practical use, and so they reach for other more accessible language. But philosophers tend to hate such language, so I am attempting to speak here in the local dialect, if you will. — Hippyhead

Yes, I think I understand. I also seek the right attitudes for dealing with these things, but for me, metaphysics doesn't help. Regarding my own death, often I think I would like to be a fighter to the bitter end, like your mother, but sometimes I think a peaceful equanimous death would be better. The significance of these things has a kind of autonomy and may as well be dealt with--this is ethics--whether they are illusions or mere patterns, or whatever.

I happened to be reading an interview with Daniel Dennett, in connection with another thread I've been reading along with, where he talks about his views on ontology and uses the word "pattern", as you do:

We have got all these atoms, and then we have the patterns that we discern among these atoms and four dimensions: space and time. Now the question is: Do the patterns have ontological significance? And for me the answer is: That's what ontology is. What other criterion could you ever use? What other reason could you ever have for your ontological presuppositions? — Dennett

I think we can interpret this as saying that it's precisely the patterns that can be said to significantly exist, rather than matter without form. This might also be Aristotle's view, namely that things exist as compounds of matter and form.

I also seek the right attitudes for dealing with these things, but for me, metaphysics doesn't help. — jamalrob

Ok, I hear you, I'm not proposing a one size fits all solution.

Regarding my own death, often I think I would like to be a fighter to the bitter end, like your mother — jamalrob

Price tag can be very high. But your choice of course.

Honestly, what scares me is that I try to time my departure too closely, and blow it. And then spend the next 12 years staring at the ceiling unable to move. 12 years that will feel like 2,000. My sister doing this right now. No end in sight. Could be 20 more years to come before it's over. Can you tell I'm terrified?

I had an uncle who was mowing the grass on a hot 4th of July and had a heart attack. They said he was dead before he hit the ground. Now that's the way to go about things.

think we can interpret this as saying that it's precisely the patterns that can be said to significantly exist, rather than matter without form. — jamalrob

This could be a way to define existence, agreed.